Today (well, October 27, so technically, it’s yesterday) it’s been a year since I started my blog. Happy birthday to the little blog that could! I’d like to look at how things changed (or didn’t) in a year, both domestically and internationally.

To begin with, we’re no longer in Republican primary season–the U.S.
election is only 10 days away. (My second blog post, in October 2011, was about Hermain Cain, who was, unbelievably, leading the polls in the Republican primary at the time.)

The situation in Syria has gotten much worse. With estimates of over 30,000 killed, and many more detained, tortured, and missing, the Syrian crisis has deteriorated since its beginning in March of 2011. Bashar al Assad has remained in power longer than anyone predicted, and it doesn’t appear that “his days are numbered”, as everyone has said since the situation in Syria has gotten so horrific that it could no longer be ignored.

The narrative about Europe and the Eurozone crisis has largely remained the same. Temporary stability has been achieved due to (mostly German-based) bailouts of struggling countries like Greece.

There have been no global climate change agreements to which the US has been a party. This is, perhaps, one of the most disappointing and frightening modes of inaction to occur in the last year. We will surely pay the price for ignoring the effects we have on the climate. The common argument is that during an economic crisis, you can’t think long term. Wrong. You HAVE to think long term. Even if we can’t do everything overnight, let’s attempt to make substantial progress. Not doing anything is a cop out, and it will be fatal. We must begin, and I’m hoping that Congress passes actual legislation, and the second term of the Obama administration makes this a priority. In addition, green jobs are real jobs.

The Keystone XL pipeline legislation was not passed, and there is support by the Obama administration for alternative energy, but no legislation on the effects of climate change has passed. President Obama owes environmentalists, progressives, and the future of humanity.

The fiscal cliff (as a result of the budget deal) looms ever larger. This debt ceiling deal was, and continues to be, a terrible Hobbesian choice that never should have come up for a vote. The fact that ignorant and reckless Tea Party economic terrorists held the government and the economy hostage makes me seethe. The fact that the House will likely still retain a Republican majority of the very same (and maybe even more conservative and ignorant members) because people vote against their interests is even more upsetting.

President Obama expressed support for same sex marriage…after Joe Biden preempted his announcement. I love Joe, though. As he said in the Vice Presidential Debate against Paul Ryan, he always says what he means, and means what he says, and people know that about him.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed on September 20, 2011, but was implemented in the months following the passage if the act. And guess what? No one died–directly from gays and lesbians serving in the military, anyway.

President Obama passed a first step toward Dream Act-style legislation.

Elections changed leadership in France, Italy, and other places (including Arab Spring elections), while oppression and allegations of voter fraud prevailed in places like Russia, Mauritius, and Venezuela led to new terms for Putin, Chavez, and the arrest of Mauritius’s previously ousted democratically-elected leader.

On September 11, 2012, the now infamous Benghazi terrorist attack occurred, killing four Americans, including the American ambassador to Libya. It was terribly tragic, and while an investigation is rightfully taking place, this event should not be politicized. Those who have politicized it should be ashamed.

In China, Bo Xilai’s corruption (and his wife’s murder of a British journalist), as well as the FoxConn disgrace, suicides, and strikes of workers living in inhumane conditions was revealed to the world. Even economic tigers have problems.

The “War on Women” has continued. I could write an entire blog post on this alone.

The world was stunned when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot. There have been several deadly shootings since then.

A No Labels candidate (the magical figure who was supposed to save us from the ever-increasing chasm of partisan divide) has not materialized. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, whose party and candidacy might be the most viable electoral alternative, was not invited to the debates. Neither were any of the other candidates from outside of the two main parties.

The War in Iraq officially ended. As per President Obama’s campaign promise, the War in Afghanistan is set to end–whatever that means, exactly–in 2014.

An unprecedented amount of money (much by outside groups) has been spent on elections this season. Over $2 billion has been spent on the presidential election alone. Think of all the other things that money could’ve been spent on.

Sure, there’s a lot to be disillusioned about, but a lot of things need to change. We don’t exactly have many other options. I’m optimistic about progress. We’ll see where we are a year from today.

I’m writing this with the perspective of having seen both the first presidential debate and the vice presidential debate. I’d like to comment on the veracity of both.

I hope that anyone who reads this post will watch tomorrow night’s debate through a pretty straightforward lens. My main criterion is very simple: Support the candidate who tells you the truth. I know, it seems like a tall order. It shouldn’t, though. If both major party candidates lie tomorrow night, both should be admonished. While the candidates—and every politician—is ultimately responsible for what he or she says, the environment should not exist in which certain behavior (e.g., lying) is not only expected, but encouraged.

For some time, there has been a not so tacit acceptance that politicians lie. For at least as long as there have been politicians, the cynical belief that you can’t trust someone who seeks to attain and maintain power has been stubbornly cemented into the collective consciousness. To an extent, this ethic may be true. It is a logical extension of human nature, and has certainly been borne out by empirical observation.

The idea that a politician can lie to get ahead, that a person can—and should—lie to the very people he or she hopes to serve is not ok.

It is not the world of 1984. There is no (official) Ministry of Truth, passing off falsehoods as fact. Politicians and members of the media are responsible for disseminating true statements, not self-serving lies.

On October 4, Dana Milbank, widely read columnist for The Washington Post, said something shocking on Martin Bashir’s show on MSNBC. Bashir asked Milbank to explain an article he had written, defending Romney’s debate performance. Milbank ended up admitting that, yes, Romney did lie on countless occasions during the debate. He had no reason to believe that these lies were not deliberate deceptions intended to win the debate. Essentially, facts be damned. When pressed further by Bashir on the major ethical issues of running for the highest office in the country, and how such action certainly undercuts legitimacy, Milbank said that Obama “let him lie”, and that that’s how you play the game. Milbank said that after he watched over 20 Republican primary debates, he didn’t see how “you would expect anything different”. Milbank maintained that lying is fine and, in Romney’s case was an advantageous move. He thinks Romney owes the country nothing, and basically said that the ball is in Obama’s court to disprove Romney’s lies. Both Bashir and Milbank agreed on Romney’s “litany of lies”. Milbank saw no problem with these lies. Not only was he complicit in this disgusting system; he praised Romney in both a widely circulated newspaper editorial and on national television.

People should be very upset. The onus, however, should not be on every person to fact check every statement. Everyone should be informed, and people like me do fact check political statements, but no one should have to expect that lies are the default position. What are journalists for? Where is the media? Oh, right, certain members—the Dana Milbanks of the media—are not doing their jobs. I don’t care if this was an opinion piece. Dana Milbank should be ashamed for encouraging such behavior, and then for doubling down on his encouragement. Like Mitt Romney, “no apologies”, it seems.

Paul Ryan also lied in his debate with Joe Biden. Ryan has a habit of disavowing the truth. The moniker “Lyin’ Ryan” didn’t come from nowhere.

Yes, I’ve been picking on Romney and Ryan. I’m putting them under the microscope because they represent very vivid and pretty indisputable examples. This is not a purely partisan issue, and I don’t seek to be discredited by acting as if it is. Lying, no matter what person, party, or persuasion, is not acceptable. It is not how you win debates, and it shouldn’t be how you win votes.

Aren’t the candidates supposed to love and laud “the American people”? To politicians everywhere: what a tremendous slap in the face to the citizens you expect to vote for you. You’re supposed to be a public servant.

To be completely clear about why such lying is problematic at best and morally bankrupt at worst, I will list five reasons why the electorate should not passively accept those who seek to lead us deceiving us.

1. An “anything goes” downward spiral: The first excuse given by anyone seeking to apologize for a politician’s lies are “but the other side does it!”, as if this excuse somehow absolves their candidate of responsibility for wrongdoing. If evasive tactics haven’t worked (further compounding the lie into an often unmanageable, tangled web of more and more lies), and the candidate is stuck with “blueberry pie on [his or her] face”, as Al Sharpton likes to say, then the act of lying is used as a defense mechanism. We, the voters, are reminded that our candidate has to “fight back” against the barrage of lies being told about him or her by his or her opponent. We are to believe that every race is an arms race and that each campaign degenerates into a prisoner’s dilemma. Of course, it would be nice if the candidates each just highlighted their own records and didn’t have to lie, but unfortunately, once the “other side” does it, “our side” has no choice. We are made to believe that the only thing that can neutralize lying is more lying, whether or not the “other side” even lied in the first place. There is so much deliberate fabrication and spin, especially by outside groups (yes, I’m calling you out, Frank Luntz and Karl Rove), that it seems chaos is created intentionally to justify further lying. At least in the Cold War, the idea of mutually assured destruction prevented each side from nuking the other because everyone realized it was in their best interest not to bring us all down. Politicians and their enablers would do well to learn a lesson from history.

2. The No Responsibility Ethic: If a politician is encouraged to lie (and takes the bait), in a debate, let’s say, then we can be assured that person has little in the way of scruples. This person is unlikely to take responsibility for lying, or for any of the consequences of his or her misinformation or disinformation. The candidate has a reputation to uphold! How dare you question his or her character? Do you really want someone in office, representing you, who does not take responsibility for his or her actions? The rest of the country is constantly reminded of the fact that we are supposed to take “responsibility for our lives” (here’s looking at you, Mitt Romney; yet, it’s more than alright for Romney to lie?)—I sense a disconnect here.

3. Unethical Conduct and the Trust Factor: This is very clear cut. Lying is unethical. Most people would agree on this point. Ask any focus group or perform any poll, and I can almost guarantee you that when presented with the idea of outright lying, this practice would be nearly universally panned by almost any panel. This idea cuts at the heart of our instinctive drive to trust others who have proven they are trustworthy. If someone will lie to you, how can you trust him or her? And should you trust him or her? Pick any point in human history. One person’s lie could have led to an early human version of you being eaten by a wild animal, or a seventeenth century version of you being burned at the stake. Trust is crucial to survival. Trust is earned and can be broken. Betrayal is devastating, even if it doesn’t result in one’s immediate demise. That is why we put such a premium on it. If someone betrays you, especially repeatedly, how can you trust this person?

4. Abuse of Power and a Sense of Elite Entitlement: We hear a lot about the divisiveness of politics, about how it’s wrong to separate people. From accusations of “class warfare” to charges of exclusion, we like to pretend America is one big, happy family, and that “united we stand; divided we fall” is an ethic to live by—until it’s not. This is only a categorical imperative for the lowly, the lesser. If politicians are allowed to lie, it sends the message that the rest of society is somehow not entitled to the same privilege, that an exception is made for the politician. Somehow, the view has been turned upside down. Instead of those who tell the truth being placed above those who lie, lying engenders a dividing line. Those who can lie with relative impunity live in the VIP room of society. They end up thinking they are allowed to act in a way contrary to the behavior expected of the general population, and how is this normally abhorrent behavior justified? Well, they must be special, or their circumstances are special. Either way, they are patricians to the rest of the American plebeians. They—the politicians—are the elite who must pay lip service to everyone else. This leads to the cordoning off of certain sections of society, like politicians, who are allowed to act in a way normally viewed as unbecoming for the rest of us. It leads to politicians thinking they are special, therefore, further separating themselves from being “one of the people”. One cannot expect to be accurately represented by such a person.

5. It’s Disingenuous: What’s real?: This is an important point: I’m not saying all politicians lie, and I’m not saying they do it all the time. If it happens even once in a presidential debate, however, that is one time too many. It’s unbelievable to me that there actually exists an adviser to the Romney campaign who claims that the campaign is not beholden to fact checkers. This statement is viewed by some as heroic. Really? Facts don’t matter? What else do we have? Suddenly, a campaign can create its own reality. Well, not only is that unfair, and the other candidates do not even stand a chance if fictional versions of themselves are presented to the public, but it’s pretty irrational and scary, not to mention incredibly arrogant. Facts do matter. Unbiased data is essential. Voters have the right to make informed decisions based on real evidence. No one should be allowed to cheat.

When you watch the debate tomorrow night, judge the candidate’s integrity. This is important. You deserve to be told the truth, and not to be manipulated. Demand a basic level of decency and honesty from politicians. Your vote matters. They are there to serve you, and lying about their records or their opponents in an effort to get ahead or pull one over on voters should be a disqualifier. Think about it: it would be in almost any other position or area of life. Those who make the climate comfortable for liars are equally responsible. Honesty and integrity are basic tenets. Telling the truth is the least people can do.

Here’s a worrying admission: Syrian officials have admitted to possessing “weapons of mass destruction”, though they claim they would “never use them on civilians…no matter how the crisis evolves”. The weapons are reserved for “foreign” invaders. Comforting? Not really.

“Weapons of mass destruction” is a loaded term to begin with. While there are standard definitions for such weapons, has the Syrian government not already sanctioned the killing of its people on a “mass” scale? Maybe nearly 20,000 lives violently extinguished over a 16 and a half month period is not massive enough. I guess it all depends on how one defines the word “mass”, but semantics aside, it’s evident that tens of thousands of Syrians have died and many more have been injured by weapons, causing gut-wrenching destruction.

“WMD” or not, how is anyone–Syrian citizen or otherwise–supposed to trust Syrian authorities? Enough have proven themselves untrustworthy and unreliable at best and extraordinarily cruel and willing to do anything to hold onto power at worst. “Don’t worry. We would never release this Ricin or drop these Anthrax-tipped bombs. Your children will be safe.” Tell that to the people of Homs, whose city has been shelled relentlessly since the beginning of the “crisis”. Or tell that to the millions of residents of other areas of the country whose names appear in international news stories daily because of the constantly rising death toll.

The message is, then: We draw the line at using WMD on our citizens–or so we say–but conventional weapons are fine. Of course, this scene-stealing story might very well be a strategic attempt to ward off would-be interventionist nations. I’m not quite sure how that would work in the U.S. case since we all know the United States predicated its invasion of Iraq mainly on the premise of the existence of WMD there. However nuanced the international relations considerations were in this decision (which I’d say were not very nuanced at all), the fact remains: The United States invaded Iraq, a country believed to have WMD, that ended up not even having WMD. I think if anything seriously deters America from intervening in a humanitarian fashion in Syria, it won’t be the Syrian government’s claims of WMD. These claims might even serve as a motivator.

The Syrian government can’t be trusted. The world is supposed to take officials at their word when they claim they wouldn’t use weapons of mass destruction on their own people? I don’t buy it, and I don’t think informed Syrians do, either. Bashar al-Assad and members of his regime have continued to assert that Syria is under attack by “armed terrorist thugs”. They have claimed foreign influence against the country before. Why wouldn’t they attack these so-called enemies of the state? Even if they don’t really believe what they’re saying, the government’s rhetoric underscores the very reasoning for why it could seek to justify future WMD attacks on its own civilians.

The calculation that strong enough weapons can insulate a country from a kind of breeching its borders foreign intervention is an understandable one since the United States has limited its actions in certain countries with known nuclear weapons, although even this assertion is not always true. Drones in Pakistan, anyone? Obviously, China and North Korea have much larger militaries and there are regional considerations, etc. There are many variables. Iran is an interesting case. Regardless, when fewer than ten countries in the world have nuclear weapons, it is too small a sample to study in the case of the effect of interventionist policies on members of this exclusive club. And even then…Syria does not have nuclear weapons, the crown jewel of fear-inducing weapons caches.

All in all, the existence of WMD in Syria is worrying. The brazenness with which this information was announced is probably both a symbol of desperation and an attempt at showing strength, a last ditch defense mechanism. The danger of such weapons is very real and duly frightening, but it shouldn’t deter the international community (whose “wait and see” ethic hasn’t worked very well) from doing more. Far fewer people died in Libya than have already died in Syria. In a strange moment of outreach to the “West”, Qaddafi relinquished his country’s nuclear weapons program in 2005, but WMD were still found in 2011, when he was overthrown and the humanitarian intervention was undertaken. Again, comparing Syria to Libya brings up a host of other variables. My point is that WMD need not be a disqualifier from further international action in Syria.

Who is the real armed terrorist thug, Assad? If we are true to our ideals of defeating terrorism around the world–and this is not only state-sponsored terrorism, it is state-practiced terrorism—American government representatives would not turn the other way, issuing empty statements on how “Assad’s days are numbered”. This is the official U.S. State Department line, by the way. If we are committed to the rights of freedom and security for our fellow human beings, then Syria’s WMD tease should serve as a wake up call.

The recent dramatic escape of blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng has shone a light on the cruelty of the practices used to employ China’s infamous “One Child” policy, and the desperation and barbary a government with unchecked power can utilize in the face of an ever daunting problem such as population control. Chen Guangcheng puts a face on China’s human rights problem. The activist and self-taught lawyer was jailed for four years for publicly protesting the forced abortions and sterilization of women in his country. (Read about these practices here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/30/world/asia/china-forced-abortions/index.html) He was then transferred to house arrest, where he remained for 19 months prior to his incredible escape to the American Embassy over 300 miles away. Over the course of his imprisonment under house arrest, he had decried the abuse he and his family suffered at the hands of guards. He recalled an instance in which guards broke into his house and held his wife inside of a comforter for hours while they mercilessly kicked and punched her before doing the same to him

Chinese officials are ashamed. They know how things like this look to the outside world, and they know how their restive population will react. This is why they censor. Widespread and immediate censorship was practiced in relation to Chen, especially after news of his escape spread on Weibo, the Chinese equivalent of Twitter. “Ashamed” might be the wrong word. They just don’t want a public relations disaster on their hands. They needn’t worry, though. United States officials have not significantly responded to any of this, and now, a week after Chen’s asylum-seeking mission to the U.S. Embassy, he has been surrendered (aka “brought of his own volition”) to a Beijing hospital, where Chinese officials have made no attempt to conceal the fact that they’re very angry with him and the attention he’s caused.

International Relations 101 is that the international system is anarchic. The actions of individuals within this system couldn’t be farther from the truth. Individuals, just as the nation-states they comprise, act in rational self interest within the system–to an extent. By its very nature, the system of nation-states that dot the earth necessitates cooperation. This is becoming more evident every day, as an increasingly globalized world proves that no country is a (proverbial) island–unless that country is North Korea, and it isn’t actually isolated; despite its constant claims of “juche”, the country is held up by the aforementioned human rights abuser, China.

I mention all of this because I see Earth’s population as a single entity: that of human society. International law, for all of its failings, exists for a reason. This is to exert order on an otherwise “anarchic”/chaotic world and to set standards for the behavior of members in the society. Apologists fearful of stepping on toes will employ the ethic of moral relativism, claiming cultural imperialism and the like, frightened of offending a subculture within world society, and therefore not reaping the individual benefits for their home country. Case in point: The United States’ unwillingness to intervene in a very obvious instance of a human rights abuse by China. Journalists reported that President Obama remained “tight lipped” on the issue of Chen Guangcheng’s detention, daring escape, and limbo-like existence as he took refuge in the American Embassy in Beijing. The American Embassy! Could there be a clearer appeal to aid from the United States?! Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a former advocate of Chen Guangcheng, remained silent on the issue, even as she arrived in Beijing for an economic summit with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. In fact, both parties–the U.S. and China–deliberately informed the world that the summit would not focus on Cheng, that the triviality of his plight should not get in the way of larger economic issues. You know, issues of global significance, unlike the issue of human rights. Read more here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/china-clinton-visit/index.html

President Obama offered up this single comment on the situation: “Every time we talk to China, the issue of human rights comes up”, he claimed. Does it? Perhaps. Or, perhaps, the idea that America owes China money (an issue which isn’t quite that simple and America could actually use to its advantage) has cowed America, and made it China’s bitch. Not very diplomatic? Looking the other way while a country tortures its people while the first country loves to proclaim its “shining beacon on a hill” status every chance it gets, is much less diplomatic. It is shameful, disturbing, but, perhaps, worst of all, it is unflinchingly hypocritical. Some countries–those with less strategic importance, perhaps–are punished, while China is given a gold star. Even if American representatives don’t approve of China’s treatment of its citizens (citizens of the world, fellow human beings), they issue their tacit approval by not speaking out on such matters. There are a select few people in positions of power whose voices carry a disproportionate amount of weight, yet they choose to remain silent because silence is easier and more convenient than standing up for human dignity when it counts.

What will Chen Guangcheng’s fate be? What does the future portend for the millions of women who have been forced to undergo painful, sometimes life-threatening abortions and forced sterilizations? What about the women and girls who daily exist as members of a society in which they are told they are unwanted, if they are lucky enough not to have been killed at birth or abandoned? A society of 1.35 billion people–females and males alike–is scarred by the destruction wrought by the Chinese Communist Party. A worry of the Party is the disproportionate number of boys to girls born in the country: 118 boys to 100 girls, the only country in the world with a significantly higher proportion of boys than girls. A telling statistic, but why does the Party mention it? It is worried about the “many unhappy bachelors” of China’s future. This type if statement is emblematic of the prevailing view in China of men as substantially more important than women. Some efforts have been made to curb violence and cruelty against women, particularly women carrying a second child or a female child, but these efforts are half-assed at best, and not uniformly enforced. This is why figures like Chen Guangcheng emerge. Courageous individuals attempt to protect their fellow human beings because the government–whose first duty is to protect its people–has failed them. Worse yet, it is the perpetrator of violence against its own. Other countries Iike the United States have a moral obligation to try to aid these suffering people, fellow citizens of our global society. The United States could certainly facilitate protection for Chen and his daughter, mother, and wife. US State Department officials reported that Chen did not seek asylum in the United States, but it has been widely reported that he was coerced into leaving the U.S. Embassy because his family’s life was threatened.

Articles on Chen’s coercion to leave the U.S. Embassy and the reaction of Chinese officials:

Instead of attempting to secure the safety of Chen Guangcheng and his family, and using this situation as a springboard from which to discuss the brutality of China’s One Child policy and its crackdown on dissidents, U.S. officials chose not to help. A single blind man has seen more than powerful sighted people who have averted their eyes.

A growing awareness of the earth began in the 1960s. The connection between astronomy/cosmology and environmentalism is a very clear one. When NASA’s Apollo astronauts took photos of the earth from space for the first time (including the iconic “Earthrise”, an image taken by Apollo 8 astronauts during the first human space flight to orbit the moon in 1968), a never before experienced sense of awe was felt by humans who could truly see the sheer beauty of their home for the first time. The environmental movement was born out of a convergence of factors, including mounting fears over nuclear weapons. The photos the astronauts took transcended borders, and impacted people in a way political arguments never could. It began in the United States, but in the decades since its inception has become a global phenomenon, celebrated in at least 144 countries worldwide. Many of these countries recognize the accompanying Earth Week, the week leading up to April 22.

“Earthise”, 1968

In honor of Earth Day, I’d like to draw attention to the importance of preservation by highlighting one of the most visceral and affecting descriptions of Earth I’ve seen. This description comes from the introduction to Carl Sagan’s 1994 book A Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space.

Credit: NASA / JPL

“Pale Blue Dot”, 1991

According to the Planetary Society, of which Carl Sagan was a co-founder:

“This excerpt from A Pale Blue Dot was inspired by an image taken, at Sagan’s suggestion, by Voyager 1 on February 14, 1990. As the spacecraft left our planetary neighborhood for the fringes of the solar system, engineers turned it around for one last look at its home planet. Voyager 1 was about 6.4 billion kilometers (4 billion miles) away, and approximately 32 degrees above the ecliptic plane, when it captured this portrait of our world. Caught in the center of scattered light rays (a result of taking the picture so close to the Sun), Earth appears as a tiny point of light, a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size.”

“We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It’s been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”

-Carl Sagan

Earth, for all of its resilience, is a fragile ecosystem. Science is miraculous, and life on earth is the most improbable of possibilities. While the search for astrobiology continues in earnest–efforts not least of which have been made by Carl Sagan’s Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or SETI—so far, our one planet is all we have and the only place in the universe that we know with certainty contains life. As Sagan said, the responsibility of stewardship of our home is “up to us” because “there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves”. Not only should we direct our efforts at treating out fellow human beings with “kindness” and “compassion”, but we should “preserve” and “cherish” Earth. This is the message of Earth Day, a message we celebrate every April, but one we should carry with us every day.

This post is going to be controversial. I give anyone who is reading this fair warning now.

I’d like to discuss the concept of humanitarian intervention in war zones around the world. I’ve mentioned my feelings on the genocide in Syria in a previous post. (Yes, I think the situation can adequately be described as genocide.) I believe humanitarian intervention in Syria in the form of military intervention is crucial at this point since the cruelty and murder of the Assad regime seems nowhere near abating. My thoughts on the Syrian situation are clear. I will elaborate further on those soon. While few people are actively speaking out on the genocide in Syria, a firestorm has erupted in the cyber world in relation to another issue: millions of people have been alerted to the cruelties visited upon Africans by the tyrant Joseph Kony, notorious for his horrific manipulation of children used in his child army. Joseph Kony is a killer and a despot, but I’m shocked that there is so much outrage about him in relation to Bashar al Assad. To be fair, these are two different scenarios. I’m seeking to illuminate the idea that people can get fired up about something via social media, and while this concept is amazing in theory (as with the dissemination of information in the Arab Spring), it also leads to the dissemination of disinformation and an inaccurate, superficial view of foreign conflict.

To begin with, let’s examine the situation in Syria. As I’ve said, I’ve described the situation before in a previous post, and if anyone is interested, he or she can look at my post “A Screaming Syria”. Senator John McCain does a very good job of describing the current state of affairs in Syria in remarks he gave to the Senate floor a few days ago, calling for multilateral military intervention with the U.S. leading. He is one of the few to do so, and in an unequivocal way, making the rounds on television news stations and publicizing his views on Twitter. His speech, which I think should be required reading for everyone can be viewed here: http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=e460be36-c488-e7de-8c38-64c3751adfce

As Senator McCain mentions in his Senate speech, the United States and NATO intervened militarily in Bosnia and Kosovo when similar situations were occurring. As he mentioned to Anderson Cooper on AC:360 (also one of the only shows to shed a consistent light on Syria), the lack of intervention in Rwanda now stands as a shameful moment in our history. It is a moment when genocide was allowed to occur. I will not get into the politics of that particular event, but even the uninitiated know it was horrific. Surprisingly, the Senator claimed that “nothing in this world is predetermined” in reference to the Obama Administration’s repeated declarations that al Assad’s demise is “inevitable”. Essentially, morality dictates that we do not sit idly by while we cross our fingers and hope that the regime falls, and like he says, even if it does, it make take “a really long time”, causing the casualty count to climb in the process.

An additional consideration that I’m surprised has not surfaced among more politicians (in particular, among Republicans) is that of long term strategic advantage for the United States after the dust settles and the power shifts in Syria. Of course, there is the very real possibility that the ideal will not come to fruition, at least not as seamlessly as we can hope, but as Senator McCain said, we don’t even have a chance if we don’t intervene—and we really can’t afford not to. Put simply, Syria has oil. If we are friendly with the new regime, and the people see us as allies, this will be an important resource for the United States. In addition, Syria and Israel are not exactly friends. This assertion may seem overly optimistic, but if the United States has greater influence in a new Syria, perhaps our country can exercise diplomatic influence in the Middle East, especially between Syria and Israel, which might have an impact on such nations as Egypt to change their attitudes toward Israel. Of course, there is the obvious benefit of challenging Iranian influence in the region. Republicans seem to hate Iran—a hatred befitting the regime, perhaps, but too often directed in a misguided way toward the Iranian people. Perhaps the American relationship with Iran could also become a more positive one as the key Iranian ally of Syria becomes an American ally. NATO would be strengthened, and the role of Turkey would be a robust one. This is also in the interest of the United States. Finally, a multilateral military intervention in Syria would aid in ushering in the new era of 21st century international cooperation. It would prove that the intervention in Libya wasn’t just a fluke, that even if the countries of the United Nations cannot agree to act in favor the moral high ground, other institutions exist that will promote the ideals of security, stability, democracy, and human rights—that international law is not dead, and that bloodthirsty leaders desperate to cling to power cannot act with impunity.

The 20th century was the century of decolonization. It began with the fall of empires after World War I, and ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the final decade of the century. The 21st century has dawned with the fight for human rights for the people in many of those countries in which such rights have not been granted. We should not let the legacy of the Arab Spring falter in Syria.

Now, after that inspiring rhetoric, I want to contrast this movement with that of the #stopkony and Joseph Kony 2012 movements. For the last two days, Twitter has been inundated with trending topics referencing the warlord Joseph Kony. This movement has spread to Facebook and other social media and aggregate sites. Many people have linked to a video about Joseph Kony on the YouTube page of Invisible Children, a nonprofit organization who launched the campaign against Kony. The stated aims are to find Joseph Kony somewhere in Uganda or central Africa—it’s not quite clear since no one knows where he is at the moment—and bring him to justice. This is a worthwhile aim, but the Invisible Children campaign is not necessarily the right tool to use to do so.

Invisible Children mainly raises awareness. This is fantastic, but does not solve the problem. Millions of young Americans can tweet all they want, but how many actually understand the complexities of child armies in Africa? How many have even heard of the L.R.A? And how many have done any research into Invisible Children, except to watch the half hour promotional video put out by the group? As the sites I will link to explain, Invisible Children supports another Ugandan group that also uses child soldiers, that rapes and loots, and engages in unspeakable horrors in much the same way that Kony’s groups have. Invisible Children feels that this group is the best tool to find Kony. What kind of message does this send? That evil can fight evil? An eye for an eye? This kind of military action is very dangerous, and as one of the sources explains, retaliatory action has been taken when American forces have intervened militarily, and anything involving child soldiers is “messy”. Another fear is the racial and cultural element in that many people don’t understand the plight of rural Africans. This is not to say intervention is never necessary or that Joseph Kony should not be made infamous. As I stated before, the Rwandan genocide is a classic case in which military intervention in Africa was necessary and should have been undertaken.

Invisible Children has many questionable practices, but has been made famous by bands such as Fall Out Boy in previous years and has now spread due to social media. I think that most people who spread the message are pure of heart and many want to be part of a larger movement to feel like they are making a difference in the world. This is commendable, though, Invisible Children and the entire Kony movement may not be the best way to go about solving the problem. The lesson that should be taken from this movement is that now that people are informed, brainstorming about a better way to end the kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder of children, as well as other members of African communities, can begin. Some people, it seems, just want to jump on the bandwagon and get involved in the latest trend. As one source said, sometimes doing nothing actually is better than doing something, if that something breeds more destruction.

Why is it that Syria has not garnered the same fevered attention as the Joseph Kony movement? There may be several reasons for this. There is a clear plan of action that can be taken in Syria, right now, with the aid of other countries within a reliable framework. The same cannot be said for the search for Kony in Africa. I urge humanitarian aid in Syria and a closer look at the Invisible Children-sponsored movement. Invisible Children has become very visible, while the idea of intervention in Syria has been nearly invisible.

What an incredible miscalculation on the part of the PNAC to assume that a strong United States would be forged from preemptive military strikes, and that military might is the main component for sustained world power in the 21st century. Perhaps the PNAC was working off of the mythology that a strong military built up the United States in the 20th century; however, it was not primarily military power, but economic power, that fueled–and then cemented–the position of the United States as a world power. From overtaking Britain and Germany in manufacturing at the turn of the 20th century to the birth of the mass production industry with Ford and his ilk through World War II, the all-important Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods, and post-war developments through the Cold War and the technological miracle of the end of the century, economics has been the main component of American success. In an increasingly Internet-based world where the word “innovation” is thrown around almost as often as the pejorative “Obamacare”, it is imperative that the US remain an engine of economic growth. The financial crisis has created a climate in which depressing statistic after depressing statistic is ubiquitous and a feeling of hopelessness pervasive.

What is especially frightening is the theme among many Republicans that a supersized military and preemptive strikes against Iran are not to be questioned. According to this view, no “patriotic American” would want to risk the country’s safety and security in such a dangerous world. Never mind that this mentality is akin to a wrecking ball. Ron Paul, the sole dissenter of this view, in the remaining field of Republican presidential contenders, claims that the Russian foray into Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviet Union and helped lead to the USSR’s demise. What he fails to mention, however, is the amount of money Russia spent on excessive military technology and the unsustainable empire it built in an age when colonialism was dying out everywhere else in the world. At this time, the US could better afford to engage in an arms race with the Soviet Union.

If our country is to live up to its credo of “the shining city upon a hill”–another phrase seemingly every Republican contender has invoked since the beginning of the race–then our strategy should be to take meaningful steps to mitigate humanitarian crises around the world. We can start with Syria. Libya provided a good example of how lives can be saved when the world intervenes. The no-fly zone proved indispensable to the Libyan rebels. Now, when Syrian rebels are calling for a no-fly zone, stricter UN action, and a credible set of observers, the US should take these pleas seriously. Without Russian and Chinese support, the UN Security Council is rendered impotent. Does that mean the US should do nothing more than what it already has? No, it doesn’t.

Unfortunately, probably very little will be done in Syria or anywhere else in the next year because it’s a presidential election year. When President Obama is criticized on every aspect of his foreign policy in repeated right wing talking points (even though Obama has been “strong” on most foreign policy initiatives), it is highly unlikely that the White House will do much anywhere else. And the Congress? Congress can’t even pass the simplest of routine domestic bills.

It is disingenuous and dangerous for Republicans to talk about “living within our means”, spending cuts, not nurturing a “dependency society”, and promising things like “bringing foreign aid down to zero”, when the same people will not provide direct assistance to the citizens suffering at home and insist on growing military and all kinds of national security expenditures. The Project for a New American Century model has failed, and has helped bankrupt the United States, aiding in the depletion of one of our country’s greatest assets: our economic success. And this money is not a vague, detached concept. It is due to the hard work and cooperation of generations of Americans, the same people Republicans would like to bleed while insisting on tax cuts for the wealthiest and building up, as Romney terms it, “a military so strong that no one will think to mess with us” (or some rhetoric to that effect). This is all proudly proclaimed and echoed by others not on the stages at debates while claiming that people in genuine need of help–whether that be around the world–or in their own backyards, are not “our problem” and these people (who include the vast majority of American citizens) should take care of themselves.

The United States can adapt right now, and need not succumb to naysayers’ insistence that the golden age of America is over. At the same time, spending exorbitant amounts of money on an aggressive foreign policy and unchecked defense spending while not taking care of US citizens is not a viable–or ethical–path forward. If for no other reason, voting for a Republican for president (and, yes, that includes Ron Paul, who lives in a fantasy world where everyone takes care of the sick by collecting money at church, never mind the fact that not everyone goes to church and even fewer people are either that giving or have the means to care for their neighbors), is an irresponsible and ignorant decision. Imagine a better world.